CO885-(18-19) — Page 697

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO |

19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

3

28

19 June 1908,

CROWN AGENTS' ENQUIRY COMMITTEE:

Mr. J. D. REEș C.V.O., C.L.E., M.P.

/

available, Sir Bradford Leslie at any rate, to give you a great deal of information.

561. (Chairman.) You would suggest to the Comunt- tee to consider whether Sir Bradford Leslie should not be called - put it to you. Sir, that he would be a very valuable witness.

562. The first question is, would Sir Bradford Leslic come?—I think he would come if you called him.

303. I have got before me now the two contracts ?— Am I wrong in what 1 said

564. Not at all; we have made a note of Sir Brad- ford Leslie, and I think the Committee would like to consider whether they would not wish to call him. In these two contracts there appears the interesting difference that, whereas the first contract was made by the Crown Agents of the Colonies acting for the Secre- tary of State for Foreign Affairs on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the next contract, that is, the supplementary contract, is made, of course, by the Crown Agents for the Colonies, but acting for and on behalf of the Governor of the Nyasaland Protectorate? -And we did not like that. We commented upon it, and we said that having contracted before with the Foreign Office because they were the Lord High Con- tractors, we should now have a contract with the Colo- nial Office because they are the Lord High Contractors, and not to be put off with any others. We did not like very much the altered arrangement.

565. You understand that the position of the Crown Agents is that they are Agents for the Crown Colonies ?-Perfectly, "and we did not like it at all; we did not consider that we should be put at the mercy of the Governor of Nyasaland. It may be admitted that he is a very different kind of official to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

566. You have given us a good deal of evidence about what we may call severity, but you mentioned incidentally delay. Your evidence would tend to show what the Crown Agents have, perhaps, been very severe, and that you would prefer dealing with tho Colonial Office because of their severity, but what about delay That would follow out of the severity if it existed; supposing they held out for a kind of bridge which we did not think right, as it would cost us too much money, every day of delay, of course, costs us more money,

667. Apart from the severity, from the business point of view, what would you state as your objection? They have not had to supply our goods; it is not a case of their supplying us with material.

568. There have not been undue delays in conse quence of this arrangement?—I do not think so, but they do not buy things for us. You mean in dealing with the contract?

569. Yes, in legal matters and things of that sort? -I should like to speak with some reservation; I think it took us a long time to get that second con- tract through, but Mr. Harris would say that was owing to objections on our part. Our case would be that we were trying to get what we thought reason-

able terins.

570. (Sir Ralph Moor.) With regard to the con. tract, under the original contract there was a time limit ?--Yes.

571. That has been extended?—Yes.

572. And extended on more than one occasion?— Yes. On one occasion.

573. What was the original time limit? We were to finish by the end of last year.

574. And there has been an extension up to what date? To the end of this year,

575. Obtained through the Colonial Office?—That is so. I should wish, sir, very much to acknowledge what I regard as the most friendly attitude of the Colonial Office. I think in all matters that have corne before them we should wish to acknowledge the extreme kind. ness and consideration with which we have been treated.

576. Was that extension obtained directly from the Colonial Office, or by the intervention of the Crown Agen's-From the Colonial Office direct; we com.

municated with the Under Secretary of State on the subject, directly.

577. (Chairman.) By the way, 1 think you would probably like to correct part of your evidence as to the contract. You remember, in detailing some of the hardships you suffered, you said that in the new contract the standard of efficiency was to be "Such as any part of the Mafeking-Bulawayo Railway" — Equal to any part of the completed portion.

578. That is not so, apparently, in the contract I have before me here. It is dated February 11, 1908; that is it, is it not?—Yes.

579.Provided further that, for the purpose of such completion and equipment, the standard of efficiency shall be such as, in the opinion of the engineer, shail be similar to the standard of officiency of such part of the railway between Mufcking in Bechuanaland, and Bulawayo in Rhodesia, as was completed 'on the 31st December, 1902" 7-"Such part "—that pins you to a particular point.

580. (Mr. Harris.) Surely that is rather in your favour; because we do not take the railway as it is now, but as at the date of 31st December, 1902. I read that, with submission, as rather in your favour!---- But is it not the case that we got that altered?

581. (Chairman.) Perhaps that is not the final form of the contract. It is dated, and must be the final one. I so it was registered on February 26th? (The contract was handed to the witness,)—I know we had some cor- respondence upon this particular point. Have you got the original one? The original one does not say this about: Such part of the completed line." I certainly read it that we were to be entitled to the general stani- ard of this long line-what might be considered the average--whereas here we are pinned to "such part." 582. This is the original one, and it contains this provision: and the standard of efficiency of the con struction and equipment of the railway throughout shall, in the opinion of the engineer (that is, th engineer of the Crown Agents, acting for the Foreign Office) be similar to the standard of the railway be tween Mafeking in Bechuanaland and Bulawayo in Rhodesia "7-Yes.

583. There is nothing said here about a bridge? No; the bridge is in the subsequent contract, and not in that one at all.

584. (Mr. Bailey.) With regard to bridges generally. was there any general provision as to the construction of bridges? As it stands at present you are liable, if you put up a trestle bridge, to have it objected to afterwards-Yes; because everything has to be to the satisfaction of the engineer, and if he is on the spot it is like holding a pistol at our heads, because he may say: "If you do not do this you will not get your land."

585. Surely it is a matter of vital importance, both to the contractors and the person with whom the con- tract was made, that you should have general ideas as to the construction of, possibly, the most expensive portion of your line, namely the bridges ?—Yes. What is your point?

588. It is surely of vital importance to both parties to the contract that you should have had some general provision_made_as to the method of construction of your bridges ?-Do you mean that we should have to conform, during construction, to the opinion of the engineer who is subsequently going to decide?

77. No, on the contrary. I think it is of vital importance that previous provision should be made by conditions in the contract, however general they may be, us to the method of construction of your bridges, Such provision should have been made, do you mean ' 58. You agree with me, do you not?- I am not suxious to agree that any provision of greater strin gency should have been entered in the fontract than exists there. but I should imagine that it is not an infrequent provision in a contract of that class.

540), (Sir Bulph Moor.) It would have helped you in your present position if your predecessor had provided some specification as to the bridges in the contract ' If I may say no.I think it is hardly appreciated that this is a pioneer line beginning 250 miles from the coast in a wild country and made to establish a com-

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Mr. J. D. RɛɛS, C.V.O., C.L.E., M.F.

munication without going through cataracts and up an unnavigable river. it was not a case for the provi- sion of specification or details; I think really the orasion in this case was right,

300. (M). Bailey.) One quite appreciates that the terms of the contract must be elastic, but 1 do not know that that means necessarily that they should be vague-Originally the intention was to make a two feet three inches line; it was the pressure of the Crown Agents that caused it to be made of this present size and similar to the South African lines. The origi bal intention was to have a much highter line which would have cost us infinitely less; we should have had less cutting, less weight of rail, and less every- thing without arguing about it it would have made all the differencg.

501, It is a question of terms, of course, but the question in my mind was why the contract was left in such a delightfully vague way as it is at present.— It seems to cut both ways as a fact.

512. (Sir Francis Muralt.) I should like to be quite sure that I understand the general result of your evidence. You say that this is a pioneer line, cun- structed under great difficulties, and without its being possible to construct it exactly on the previous lines; but you do not suggest that on that account it should h left absolutely to the discretion of the company to work it and complete it as they thought best? Some control is necessary in order to secure that the Colonal Office or the Government of the Colony should receive a line of the value which it is paying Evidently, and in moldition to that, there is a proviso for purchase by the Government,

593. That being, there must be some professional adviser of the Colonial Office of the Crown Agents (I do not care which you call it) who must be able to say to his employers: "These people are or are not carrying out in equity the conditions of their con- tract": that you would probably agree to -I would agree. yes.

94. Your difficulty--I will not use the word com- plaint--oris in this, that the particular adviser appointed feeling himself dependent upon what you call the suallarlonial Offier would be more strict than a professional adviser appointed by the greater Colonial Office --It would depend upon the spirit of his instructions from either office concerned.

45. That is only putting it in another way--that the spirit of the instructions given to their engineer by the Crown Agents would for some reason be more stringent than those which would be given by the Colonial Office to the professional adviser employed by them I think it is quite conceivable.

596. Not only conceivable, but you think it likely 7 I think in some cases it might be-yes. 597. And you go a little further and say in point of fact it was?-But if I did that I should be making a complaint.

598. Not at all; we merely want to get the facts of the system, and it is the system you are describing?— 1 certainly think the system would lead to that sort of thing. Upon that point, sir, you have just pointed out how elastic and wide the words are as regards standard, and that there is no specification. If you have an engineer on the spot whose opinion is to be taken as the constructors go along, in one respect he is armed with no power and in the other with illimitable power. He can say that the work is not up to the Standard of the railway indicated. The standard of efficiency need not be equal, because this contract does not provide for identity of type of con- struction, but provides for equality of efficiency (that is all) with another railway.

509. How would the position of the professional inspector be different because he was appointed by the one authority rather than by the other? Take the case of the Colonial Office sending out an engineer to reside on the spot and report whether the standard of efficiency was equal to that part of a certain rail- way which had been completed on the 31st December, 1902, what I want to get at and what would be important in your evidence is why do you think ho might be a more stringent and drastic critic in the one case than in the other?--I think that rather raises the personal equation.

29

19 June 1908

600. No, we have dismissed the personal equation. There are two systems, and, as I understand, you' recommend the system under which the professional inspection should be that of an agent appointed by the Colonial Office. Heretofore the case has been a professional inspector appointed by another Depart- iment, let us call it. Why should you say that his criticism would necessarily be more severe in the one case than in the other?-Given perfect Crown Agents, I do not know that it would be, but we cannot expect perfection from that office, I presume.

601. (Chairman.) Why should they be more perfect in the one case than in the other It is conceivable that they might be more imperfect in the one case than in the other.

602. Why ?--Because they are a little outside body and they are not Civil servants to begin with; that is one thing material to your inquiry. They occupy a quasi-independent position, and that makes a great difference. They are in a position to say to their engineer: Whose servant are you? Who appoints

We dv. you?

We interpret this standard of efficiency; we tell you what we think it is." Then we are placed in our second contract under the local Governor. Why is that? We are cut off from the Colonial Office; we are under the local Governor, who, with all respect to him, is not an official in the same position as those we should deal with here. He has neither the same experience, nor is he in the same position. We are with the Crown Agents, and we are cut off from the Colonial Office. I should say, without making any reflection at all on the Crown Agents, that it is obvious there must be a higher standard of impartiality at this office and less liability to any-I will not say personal feeling. be cause I do not say anything of that kind exists, but there is a luftier atmosphere of impartiality here, and necessarily so.

603. Why, in your judgment-really think that is a very difficult question, but I think it makes a difference that these are not Civil servants-that they are not a part of the Civil Service. It puts them on a different footing.

604. (Sir Ralph Moor.) You mean that they would be more secure in their position as Civil servants and more free to criticise than in their present position? -Very much so, and they would also be deterred by their circumstances from any entangling engagements or any arrangements which might come under the eyes of any unfriendly critics; in short, they would be subject to criticism.

605. It is really all subject to criticism, but you think, dealing direct with the Colonial Office, the Colo- nial Office would be prepared to accept a workable rail- way, whereas dealing with the Crown Agents they require a perfect railway?-More nearly approximat ing to it-yes.

6506, And their position in that matter is to defend themselves from any criticism to an extent ?—Yes, and if they take up a certain standard, being in the posi- tion they are, it seems to me that it is very difficult for the Colonial Office to ignore them, because they are the parties to the contract; they make the con tract; practically the Colonial Office seems to me to depute the whole business to them, and unless you come as an appellant against them you are deprived of that atmosphere of impartiality which is so much appreciated by the public, because although they may criticise officials they know perfectly well and appre ciate the fact that they are above all suspicion.

607. (Chairman.) I think you have made your point very clear. Could you tell us finally, although it is almost apparent from the replies you have made, what would be your suggestions for improving the state of affairs which you think is at present in vogue?- I am afraid I have no suggestion of great value to make. but I am bound to say that I think the system that obtains next door at the India Office would be a far better one than the one that obtains here. I dan say the circumstances are different, and that it may neressary to have somebody to purchase for these small Protectorates and small Colonies. I am not competent to express an opinion as to whether it is so or not, but I do think that a system which puts off the public with an outside body which is not in the Civil Service and cannot occupy the same pinnacle of im-

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

1 AT $1 611